So they made garbage AI content, without any filtering for errors, and they fed that garbage to the new model, that turned out to produce more garbage. Incredible discovery!
I don’t know if thinking that training data isn’t going to be more and more poisoned by unsupervised training data from this point on counts as “in practice”
The inbreeding could also affect larger decisions in sneaky ways, like how it wants to compose the image. It would be bad if the generator started to exaggerate and repeat some weird ai tropes.
So they made garbage AI content, without any filtering for errors, and they fed that garbage to the new model, that turned out to produce more garbage. Incredible discovery!
Indeed. They discovered that:
shit in = shit out.
A fifty year old maxim, to be clear. They “just now” “found that out”.
Biggest. Scam. Evar.
Who just found that out?
people equals shit
Yeah, in practice feeding AI its own outputs is totally fine as long as it’s only the outputs that are approved by users.
I don’t know if thinking that training data isn’t going to be more and more poisoned by unsupervised training data from this point on counts as “in practice”
I would expect some kind of small artifacting getting reinforced in the process, if the approved output images aren’t perfect.
Only up to the point where humans notice it. It’ll make AI images easier to detect, but still pretty for humans. Probably a win-win.
Didn’t think of that, good point.
The inbreeding could also affect larger decisions in sneaky ways, like how it wants to compose the image. It would be bad if the generator started to exaggerate and repeat some weird ai tropes.